Copyright © 2013 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance. Michon, G., R. Nasi, and G. Balent. 2013. Public policies and management of rural : lasting alliance or fool's dialogue? Ecology and Society 18(1): 30. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05706-180130

Guest Editorial, part of a Special Feature on Public policies and management of rural forests: lasting alliance or fool’s dialogue? Public Policies and Management of Rural Forests: Lasting Alliance or Fool's Dialogue? Genevieve Michon 1, Robert Nasi 2 and Gérard Balent 3

ABSTRACT. Most people in and rural areas manage as part of their livelihood systems. The resulting “domestic” or “rural” forests are distinct from conventional forest. They have historically been overlooked by the sector and impacted by forest policies and regulatory frameworks. These forests presently encounter requalification and valuation dynamics, fueled by a sustainable development ideology, and induced by both public powers and local communities. These dynamics move in two different directions: the naturalization of rural forests by policy makers, and their politization by rural people. We draw on long-term research experiences in France, Morocco, Southeast Asia, and Africa on forests managed by “farmers”, among which some are analyzed in the Ecology and Society Feature, Public policies and management of rural forests: lasting alliance or fool’s dialogue?. We first elaborate on domestication, analyzed at , ecosystems and landscape levels, as a concept allowing for a better understanding of the specific relationships developed between rural people and forests. We then engage in a critical review of how forest-related and sustainable development policies consider rural forests, and discuss how they address (or do not address) their specificity and encourage (or do not encourage) their development. Key Words: domestication; forestry regulations; local ; patrimony; political ecology; public policies; resilience

INTRODUCTION All over the planet and throughout history, people have been Fig. 1. Rural forests: Argan forest in Morocco (above), managing trees as part of their agricultural activities and chestnut forest in Corsica (middle), farmers’ forest in livelihoods. This is obvious in Europe where rural landscapes France (below) integrate various forest patches: small woodlots intertwined with fields, isolated trees in pastures and linear forests bordering grass fields (Balent 1996, Baudry and Jouin 2003). This is less conspicuous in areas with relatively continuous forest landscapes, such as in tropical forests, Mediterranean bushland, or wooded savannas and steppes in Africa, where it is easier to deny the positive role of local farmers in shaping the forest ecosystem (Balée 1998, Fairhead and Leach 1996, Simenel 2011) (Fig. 1 and 2). The resulting “rural forests” appear as somewhat distinct from conventional forests; they exhibit common characteristics from North to South, though are rather contrasted as far as tree species, ecosystem structure, management practices or underlying institutions are concerned (Génin et al. 2013). The major distinction is that they are the product of planned farming and are attached to the domestic economies in the surrounding areas. But because they are forests, they are still often impacted at a national scale by forest policies and regulatory frameworks. These policies and associated forest management regimes are devised to manage forest domains in the name of the State but are not meant to incorporate the interests and logics of rural forests. They have therefore contributed to the concealment of the realities of rural forest management, led to global misinterpretation of its importance and characteristics, and impeded its development.

1IRD, 2CIFOR, 3INRA, France Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

would acquire legitimacy and be integrated in a renewed rural Fig. 2. Rural forests: Agroforests in Indonesia (above) with development? damar (Shorea javanica) (left) and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) (right), Agroforests in India with coffee Drawing on long-term research experiences in France, (below) Morocco, Southeast Asia, and Africa on forests managed by “farmers” (shifting cultivators, settled farmers, and/or seminomadic shepherds), and following authors in these specific fields, we elaborate on concepts for a better understanding of the specific relationships that have evolved between rural people and forests, ecosystems and landscapes. We then engage in a critical review of how forest-related and sustainable development policies consider forests, in general, and discuss how they address (or do not address) the specificity of rural forests and encourage (or do not encourage) their development.

Fig. 3. Sustainable development initiatives in rural forests: Geographical Indication for rural forest products (pork meat in the Spanish dehesa: above left, chestnut flour in Corsica: above right, argan oil in Morocco: below right) or in Cameroon (below left)

Precisely because of (or despite) that, rural forests constitute highly resilient social-ecological systems. For centuries, rural forests have resisted national forestry frameworks that have tried to limit local forest-related practices and expel farmers from the forest. Rural forests have survived agricultural intensification and modernization that have attempted to eliminate trees from agricultural landscapes in order to rationalize local production patterns. Today, in many places in the world, outmigration from rural areas and related transformation of rural lands favor their extension or rejuvenation. These forests therefore constitute a good entry point for understanding the role public policies play in the resilience of social-ecological systems and how they may RURAL LANDSCAPES: DOMESTICATING THE encourage or discourage a path towards sustainability. ORIGINAL FOREST? Rural forests are not typically managed from a professional The failure of capitalistic agriculture and the global economic forestry perspective. Their existence relies on specific crisis put rural forests back in the heart of economic strategies practices and their design incorporates strong livelihood and in many rural areas, through various valuation processes social dimensions (Sauget 1994, Wiersum 1997). They have supported by a sustainable development ideology. Some of evolved from long-standing and complex domestication these processes are locally born and carried out by local actors: processes targeting trees, ecosystems and landscapes (Michon territorial qualification of forest products (chestnuts in et al. 2007). southern Europe, pork meat from the dehesa forests in Spain) and the revival of abandoned forest productions (black truffles Domesticating trees in southern France). Others are designed through a top-down Practices on trees range from light manipulations (favoring approach: support of “community forests” (Cameroon) or selected individuals in untouched forests and selectively “tribal forests” (India) and product certification (argan oil in weeding around them) to strong interventions (planting, Morocco) (Fig. 3). Does this then illustrate a reversal of , breeding, grafting). historical trends and a turn towards a future where these forests Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

At the far end of this spectrum, domestication is obvious. In producers, and therefore the strongest reproducers and southern Europe, chestnut trees (Castanea sativa) are the the best stocks for grafting (Michon 2011). “most humanized of all European forest trees” (Michon 2011) ● It relates the tree to the human sphere through the and have been domesticated since the Middle Ages. The immaterial practices of domestication. In chestnut domestication process has followed a classical development orchards as well as in the argan forest, venerable trees pattern: selection in the wild, , selection of the most are given names, and family or village histories are linked desirable individuals in cultivated stands and finally, to them (Dupré 2002, Simenel 2011). In that respect, they reproduction of the selected varieties by grafting. Today, one enter the domestic circle of village families and are the single village in a chestnut-producing area may hold dozens representations of their collective memory. Such of local varieties. diversity, induced by selection practices at the tree level, But for most tree species in rural forests, domestication is locally highly valued. In chestnut areas, villages’ remains more or less invisible, like for the holm- of dehesas identity and pride are related to the array of their chestnut (Linares 2007), or néré (Parkia biglobosa) and karité varieties that contribute to the specific flavor of the (Vitellaria paradoxa) in African parklands (Boffa 1999). The chestnut flour (Michon 2011). Argan farmers classify and argan tree (Argania spinosa) in southern Morocco is also name eight tree categories related to the tree’s size and considered “wild”. The high variety of shapes and architecture, architecture. They also use a highly refined terminology from large trees in fields to tortured individuals which goats that defines the type and quality of fruits and “provides climb for foraging, or rock-like shrubs in heavily grazed areas, indices of a long term domestication process” (Génin and is generally attributed to the combination of natural conditions Simenel 2011). and tree responses to grazing (Fig. 4). However, detailed research (Génin and Simenel 2011, Simenel 2011) has shown that local people intentionally design trees in this way. The production of umbrella-shaped trees in barley fields requires Fig. 4. Domesticating the argan tree: Umbrella-shape for careful and continuous pruning in order to produce a single argan trees in fields (above left), Several stems in collective stem with a large canopy that prevents low branching. In rangelands (above right), forage tree in family rangelands rangelands, trees are tailored through selective pruning or (middle left) with stone “stairs” (middle right), hedges in branch curving, which either facilitates goat foraging villages and fields (below left), “Green-Rock” in collective (fostering horizontal branches) or prevents it (favoring vertical rangelands (below right) branches). Argan trees are not planted, but in addition to protecting and fostering natural seedlings in fields, farmers also practice cultivation of stem and suckers in order to regenerate stands. Pruning, shaping and intertwining suckers also helps or constituting dense living edges that prevents goats from entering barley fields. Overgrazed trees are not locally considered to be degraded, as they can revert to a tree shape as soon as the grazing pressure is relieved. Tree domestication in rural forests constitutes an original strategy compared to tree domestication in or conventional forestry, as:

● It does not focus on the selection of single-purpose genotypes but targets both increased production and the maintenance of a high level of genetic diversity.

● Given tree species (argan, oak, juniper, ash) can be managed in diverse ways depending on the desired function or resources enhanced.

● It incorporates a certain degree of fluidity between wild and domesticated, as exemplified in the chestnut example, where domesticated trees still look like large forest trees and where trees reproduced from natural seedlings are considered “wild” (bastardu), even though the seeds come from varieties that have been selected for centuries. This wild component is linked to tree reproduction as bastardu are considered the best pollen Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

Domesticating the ecosystem by local people (Lepais et al. 2006). The coexistence in small Domestication in rural forests also relies on specific processes rural forest patches of four oak species (Quercus robur, Q. targeting ecosystem design. This remarkable strategy of petraea, Q. pubescens, and Q. pyrenaica), differing in their ecosystem domestication means it retains the complexity of growth capacity, their temperature and rainfall tolerance, its natural structures, making full profit of natural vegetation results in forest habitats with a high level of biodiversity dynamics while retaining the original ecosystem’s qualities, (Monteil et al. 2005) and increases the resilience of these rural including the basic principles of natural silvigenetic forests in response to ongoing climatic changes (Fig. 6). succession and of forest production (Michon et al. 2007). Agroforests in Indonesia are the best example of ecosystem Fig. 6. Farmers’ forests in French Gascogne: a fragmented domestication. They “originate from the (partial or total) forest-type in agricultural lands managed for slashing and burning of original forests with the planting of production, hunting and mushroom collection, with trees in the swiddens. They evolve through gradual forest high levels of biodiversity reconstruction involving plantation, protection, selection and facilitation of natural regeneration processes. Once developed, these planted forests reproduce themselves without disruption in structural or functional patterns over the long run with minimal input, thanks to a balanced combination of anticipated replacement of decaying individuals, mimetic gap planting, and respect of natural dynamics. These practices allow further diversification through the colonization by many forest species inside the cultivated stand” (Michon et al. 2008) (Fig. 5). The resulting agroforest looks like a natural forest ecosystem, with “a high canopy, dense undergrowth, high levels of biodiversity, and a perennial structure”, and produces without significant human interference.

Fig. 5. Fostered silvigenetic development processes in the establishment of Agroforest in North Sumatra, Indonesia: farmers introduce benzoin seedlings in the cleared undergrowth of old-growth forest, let it grow with self-established species, then clear the agroforest for regular The main characteristic of ecosystem domestication lies in the harvesting for 40 to 60 years, and let the ageing agroforest fluidity between what relates to human practices and what revert to an old-growth forest for a new planting cycle relates to nature. Contrary to the ecological oversimplification and strong control associated with modern agriculture or even tree culture and orchards, management practices foster desired productions while containing wilderness within acceptable limits. Michon (2011), for example, shows that the chestnut orchard exhibits a rather continuous back and forth movement between wild, managed and cultivated with a coevolution of practices and ecosystem structure. Management intensification fosters the establishment of chestnut stands, while reverting to wilderness allows the system to survive abandonment. Today, chestnut producers try to devise a new compromise between wild and domestic. Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. (2012) show a similar process of balancing nature and culture in reinvesting in garrigues for truffle production in southern France. Domestication at the landscape level On a larger scale, as noted by Erickson (2006), forest farmers would invest more energy in “domesticating landscapes as a Another significant example of forest ecosystem whole than in domesticating individual species of plants and domestication is the high level of both genetic and specific animals.” At this level, domestication develops through diversity of in the fragmented forests of French Gascony, several strategies, including: resulting from multifunctional forest management practices Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

● Development of specific infrastructures linked to forest culture and production: irrigation channels, terraces or Fig. 7. Landscape domestication patterns in rural forest small walls aimed at soil and water conservation in the systems: from continuous forest cover (above) in the damar argan forest and in sloping chestnut areas, barns attached agroforest in Indonesia (left) and in the argan forest in to ash tree farms in the Pyrenees, buildings for chestnut southwestern Morocco (right) to forest fragments (forest storing, drying, and molding. “agdal” in the Moroccan High Atlas: below, left, and linear forests and woodlots in Central France: below right) ● Functional specialization through spatial distribution of practices and rights creating differential forest types in the landscape, especially in botanically rather homogeneous forests. The chestnut forest is divided into: orchards intensively managed for fruit production; foraging spaces devoted to pork production and very extensively managed; and chestnut groves devoted to timber production, managed through . The argan landscape is compartmentalized into different types of stands corresponding to different levels of argan tree exploitation: areas, with large argan trees scattered in the middle of individually-owned cultivated fields; agdal devoted to foraging and harvesting managed and owned by family branches; ’ agdal under the jurisdiction of the State, where foraging is allowed but where forest management (timber harvesting and rejuvenation through coppicing) dominates; and collective foraging areas with overgrazed trees which act as a buffer to release pressure on other THE POLICY LANDSCAPE: RECONCILIATION compartments (Génin and Simenel 2011). BETWEEN FOREST AND AGRICULTURE? ● Distribution between open fields, forest plots and Rural communities managing forests usually do not individual trees, which creates highly varied patterns, differentiate between what is forest and what is agriculture. from rather continuous forest cover (the argan forests or But their forests are subjected to public policies and related the Indonesian agroforests) to forest islands scattered technical support services that usually draw a distinct line over an agricultural landscape (the small peasant forest between agriculture and forestry, which do not take into in south-western France (Sourdril et al. 2012), forest account local forests’ specificities. agdal in the High Atlas, (Auclair et al. 2011) or Competing visions of the forest agricultural landscapes compartmentalized by trees and From the international level to nations and regions; from linear forests (Baudry and Jouin 2003) (Fig. 7). historical times to the present; forest visions and policies Some rural forests have helped develop true cultural incorporated two main categories of elements. landscapes: the chestnut forest in Corsica (Michon 2011) and The first category refers to public goods and interests, which in the Cevennes (Dupré 2005, Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. nowadays globally relates to environmental concerns: fauna, 2012). These cultural landscapes provide a specific economy soil or watershed preservation, biodiversity conservation, that sustained the highest population densities in Europe at the ecosystem services and climate change mitigation. This turn of the 20th century. Others include the argan forest, which reflects a vision of a “moral forest” that relies on principles, covers around 900,000 ha and sustains 2.5 million people theories and management norms deemed to be universal: (Nouaïm 2005), the dehesa system in Spain (San Miguel forests stand at the center of the planet’s equilibrium and have 1994), or the damar agroforest in the south of Sumatra (Michon to be managed in order to preserve global environmental and de Foresta 1999). processes as well as the future of humankind (Kouplevatskaya As developed elsewhere, forest domestication also includes a and Buttoud 2008). This “environmental forest” is globally strong immaterial component that relates a particular forest considered as uninhabited, except for some emblematic (and its components, from trees to landscapes) to a human populations holding a unique and irreplaceable traditional group, its history and its domestic units (Michon et al. 2007). ecological wisdom. Farmers are deemed to be forest enemies whose practices (slash and burn agriculture, nomadic herd foraging, hunting, and harvesting) contribute to the destruction of the ecosystem and its wealth. This vision is mediated by Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

international institutions and NGOs and incorporated in be registered as farmers. The Indian and Indonesian laws still national forestry frameworks. differentiate between “forest trees” and “agricultural trees”, the former belonging to the State even if they grow on farmers’ The second forest vision refers to nations’ interests and focuses fields (Menon et al. 2009). on forest valuation, mainly through production (timber, fuelwood). This vision has led to the constitution of forests as This segregation has caused, for example, the disappearance specific legal entities: state forest domains managed through of Sandalwood trees in West Timor in Indonesia. The (1) a system of rules and regulations concerning forest access, sandalwood dispute was so sensitive that foresters used to use and control, (2) harmonized silvicultural practices, (3) for patrol local farms to control the presence and integrity of the production of benefits derived from wood exploitation sandalwood trees. Farmers were so harassed that they (Fay and Michon 2005). The development of scientific preferred to uproot sandalwood seedlings from their fields forestry established professional foresters as the only (Michon 2005). In the Western Ghats of India, farmers have, knowledgeable and legitimate forest managers, thus over time, replaced the “forest trees” that shade the coffee discarding farmers and local people. This has entailed on their farms, with fruit trees and fast growing important biases for rural forests management, as noted in the species (Menon et al. 2009), resulting in a significant decrease papers by Lescuyer et al. (2012) in Cameroon, and Rives et in forest biodiversity in the region. At worst, this segregation al. (2012) in Niger. means that farmers are deprived of much of their land resource base (Fay and Michon 2005). This also happens in the A third vision has been emerging over the last two decades or extension of plantation agriculture in Indonesia, where large so, mainly in Europe: the recreational forest. This forest is estates are given preference and local farmers are hired as tailored by and for urban dwellers, and, again, managed by wage laborers. foresters and national or local public services. None of these visions accommodate rural forests’ logics nor Do sustainable development policies help? integrate their social, productive and environmental functions. Sustainable development policies should offer better From a farmer’s point of view, forest is much more than merely opportunities for the recognition and development of rural timber, fuelwood or biodiversity, and forest management is forests, particularly through such mechanisms as enhancing carried out mainly for sustaining local livelihood—even if this biocultural products or the promotion of shared governance management also incorporates concerns for more global systems. interest. These diverging views on forests, and the policies Studies show that implementation of such policies often fails they inspired, fuelled centuries of conflicts between farmers in enhancing local development dynamics: projects barely and forest managers and inspired the definition and meet local people’s expectations and communities’ enforcement of strict normative and prescriptive frameworks participation remain very low when defining projects’ incorporating high levels of state intervention, legitimized by objectives and development. This gap comes from a global environmental and production interests. The consequences of misunderstanding: developers (who are often trained in these linger even now, as reported in several papers in a special forestry or agriculture) fail to understand the complexity of issue: for India (Macura et al. 2011), Morocco (Auclair et al. local social-ecological functions linked to rural forests (Rives 2011), and Niger (Rives et al. 2012). et al. 2012), whereas communities are reluctant to endorse the rationale and objectives of sustainable development as it is Local forest in agrarian frameworks offered to them (Macura et al. 2012). Agrarian frameworks and agricultural policies are regulating either through market mechanisms or by systems of incentives/ There seems to be three main causes for this problem. disincentives. In theory, as they are not directly compulsory The first cause relates to the slow rate of change in classical and give freedom of choice to practitioners, they should offer representations of what is a forest and of farmers’ attitudes better opportunities for the incorporation of rural forests’ towards trees and forests (Boutefeu and Arnould 2006). Most logics and interests. But they fail to do so. Conventional foresters are still convinced that they have to teach local people agriculture not only ignores rural trees and forests, but also how to sustainably manage a forest and are reluctant to share considers them as an impediment to agricultural production. knowledge and control over forest resources with local Ignoring the articulation between forest and agriculture, and communities (Macura et al. 2012). the continuity of farmers’ practices from forests to fields and pastures, has prevented farmers from engaging in planting The second cause comes from the fact that many forest-related trees. In France, until recently, when farmers wanted to projects tack “sustainable development” onto conventional incorporate trees in their fields, they could not claim national forest development models, thus reducing the sustainable subsidies; chestnut managers could not be registered as development concepts to more classical norms. “Participation” farmers (Michon 2011); the role of Mediterranean bush for thus becomes “inviting local people” into an already defined grazing is still denied and farmers have to hold grass fields to plan (Auclair et al. 2011, Lescuyer et al. 2012) in which their Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

power is quite limited. “Dialogue” is restricted to information payment for environmental services, REDD mechanisms, meetings (Macura et al. 2012), and “social forestry is often etc.). targeted at degraded zones of the reserved forests with the aim Some authors have shown that in forest areas in the south, of restoring them with the participation of the people” (Macura rural development relies on macroeconomic factors, which et al. 2012). “Multifunctionality” is narrowed to one aspect of promote the development of industrial agricultural forest production (Rives et al. 2012, Kouplevatskaya and commodities (coffee, cocoa, rubber, and oil palm) (Sunderlin Buttoud 2008) or to preparing the forest for recreation et al. 2000, Wunder 2001). Feintrenie et al. (2010) report how (France). Sustainable production more than often means the national and international economic contexts clearly sustainable production of wood. Rural forestry schemes focus influence Indonesian farmers’ decisions about their forests, globally on encouraging local people to access conventional for example. In Sumatra, local famers opt for the removal of forest management rather than adapting to rural forest their agroforest and changes in their livelihood in the interest management logic. Lescuyer et al. (2012) show that the of increasing their income. In Cameroon, sustainable forest integration of local use rights or local knowledge and practices management policies do not provide sufficient income into community forest management plans is primarily formal. generation opportunities to local people compared to Kouplevatskaya and Buttoud (2008) showed that in France, agricultural policies and macro-economic dynamics even if local forest policies target rural development and (Lescuyer et al. 2012). In Morocco, NGOs’ and market-driven farmers’ participation, forest management still focuses on developments of argan oil for international consumption is classical forest services (provision of timber and energy, slowly changing the familial nature of the argan forest, which protection of “remarkable” plant or animal species) and not could deprive the rural poor of their argan resources (Simenel on the real farmers’ needs and interests. et al. 2009). In most southern countries, agricultural The third cause is more subtle and complex. Although efforts development still relies on the elimination of trees and forests, are made by forest services and governments to incorporate a whether on government lands or in rural forests. new vision of rural forest communities and forestry, they fail On the contrary, in France, management of rural forests is in fully translating this new vision into action. As revealed by driven by patrimonial rather than economic concerns. Rives et al. (2012) in Niger, decentralization released the However, the development of the land market for recreational state’s monopoly over forest management and gave rights back uses holds a high potential for dissociating rural forests from to communities. However, sustainable forest management their social rural bases, as observed in the Corsican chestnut projects failed in questioning the representation of wood as forest (Michon 2011), in farm-related forests of Gascogne the only function of local forests, as well as the only forest (Sourdril et al. 2012) or in Pyrenean farms (Gibon et al. 2010). livelihood support. Moreover, the sudden burst of market mechanisms and These obstacles become more important when states try to policies related to climate change is dramatically changing the involve local communities in sustainable forest management forest landscape towards a direction in which concerns for in a context of global failure of national forest development biodiversity, local knowledge of sound governance are of policies. secondary importance. Carbon storage gives foresters and But there are signs of slow improvement: some examples show environmentalists the first voice and restores their faded a process of mutual learning between the developers, forest legitimacy. This tendency expresses itself in northern and agents, local NGOs and local people, though still diffuse and southern forests: foresters in France reinvest in once “inactive” poorly formalized (see Lescuyer et al. 2012 for Cameroon, forests (Mediterranean bushes, naturally afforested plots, Garcia et al. 2010 for India, and Michon 2011 for Corsica). smallholder’s private forests) for an intensified and State administrations are processing sustainable development rationalized fuelwood production, whereas forests in the south norms and plans in regards to the definition of rural and forest are nowadays driven by REDD mechanisms. How will rural projects by incorporating and listening to local people, who and domestic forests survive this carbon steamroller? are eager to demonstrate the sustainability of their forest- related practices. Even if the necessary acknowledgement and DISCUSSION: RURAL FORESTS, BETWEEN incorporation of local practices into forest development is still RESILIENCE AND POLITICAL ECOLOGY in the early stages, the situation is evolving. As a social-ecological system, rural forests link specific vegetation and human groups. The co-evolution of these two The influence of market components is closely related to practices, rules and In this context of unsatisfactory public policies regarding rural perceptions anchored in local livelihoods, history and culture, forests, the market and its globalization represent substantial and the links between humans and trees. Also, there exists a driving forces, either directly through free options for income complex interrelationship established between rural generation offered to farmers, or indirectly through new forest- populations and other segments of societies (local to related market instruments (conservation concessions, international). Resilience and sustainability rely on socio- Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

environmental and biocultural integration at various scales: requirements without necessarily or drastically changing their tree/uses and practices; ecosystem/knowledge and practices; forest structures and functions. This “in-between” (between landscape and local users/social and political environments. wild and domesticated, between nature and culture) relies on a continual and mutual adjustment between biological Resilience: the quality of socio-environmental and structures and dynamics on the one hand, and management biocultural integration at various scales practices and rules in the other. It constitutes a major factor in Rural forests have often been presented by foresters as “the the capacity of rural forests to adapt to changing environments end of the forest”, but they present a set of qualities for without losing their identity. resilience. At tree and ecosystem level, adaptive management, rather than the search for maximal control, is the rule to Some rural forests seem to be at a breaking point in their history retaining economic and environmental quality. This adaptive and have to find new forms and functions to adapt. Some approach concerns management practices and institutions, Indonesian agroforests succumbed to market forces and now which continuously stick to changing biological, ecological, these agroforests are being converted to monospecific cash- economic and political conditions (Génin et al. 2013). Our crop plantations. Feintrenie et al. (2010) report an important modern idea of land management operates through a process discontinuity in Indonesian agroforests: economic globalization of segregation of production, conservation and cultural that promotes the development of export-oriented national functions in distinct compartments of the landscape. Rural policies (based on agricultural commodities) pushes farmers forests are based on a close integration of these functions in a towards increasing integration of cash crops in their economy. single spatial unit. Because of the close connection between These cash crops consist of three main tree crops: cocoa, rural forests and other agricultural activities in livelihood rubber, and oil palm. The authors mention that in order to cope systems, this integration reinforces the safety and the with the price fluctuations of export commodities, farmers autonomy of both forest and agricultural systems. It can also combine various cash crops on their farm. Instead of be analyzed in terms of diversification as opposed to integrating them into their agroforest, they segregate the specialization. Diversification benefits balance levels of different crops into separate plots over the landscape. The production for individual crops that remain lower than those authors conclude that this is the “end of agroforests”. But this observed through systems of monoculture or specialized integration could also open up a new landscape — mixing management. The close connection of the rural forest trees and agriculture with segregated tree plantations and management with agriculture is an essential quality. When the agroforests supported by international payments for classical forest management is based on cycles rarely environmental services. Gibon et al. (2010) show how the compatible with the needs and the necessary flexibility of the ashtree in the Pyrenees, which used to be a multifunctional local production, the rural forest relies on the various resource in local rural forests (providing fodder, fuel, rack, complementary production cycles, which allows fulfilling fork, and collar), was strongly affected by the collapse of the altogether regular, annual and exceptional needs. Under its traditional pastoral system and is seen today as an invasive various avatars, the rural forest impacts directly the species of grassland that fails to find its place in the modern sustainability of both the production systems and the territories mountain economy (Fig. 8). However, with the growing in which it is included. demands for alternative tree products, such as wood chips for domestic fuel or field fertilization, the ash tree could find a As mentioned above, this socio-environmental and biocultural new role in the local economy and therefore find its place in integration implies maintaining a complex balance between a renovated rural forest landscape. Garcia et al. (2010) nature and culture, which seems to be the dominant factor in observed that in the Western Ghats in India, coffee agroforests resilience. Balent (1996), Michon (2011), Michon et al. are being converted to no-shade coffee plantations, but other (2007), Sourdril et al. (2012), Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. authors reveal that the strongest move is towards a change in (2012), among others, show that rural forests, though coffee landscapes from “forest trees” as a canopy of coffee sometimes highly modified compared to the original forest gardens to the introduction of a fast growing species as either ecosystem, allows for the maintenance or restoration of forest a light canopy for coffee or as a specialized culture. economic, social and ecological functions in the agricultural landscapes. They also show that the fluidity between Rural forest and sustainable development policies: domestication and wilderness promotes rural forest’s survival towards a political ecology or development which maintains most of its originating As noted by Menon et al. (2009), “rural forests are often not functions, in a context of intensification (as reported for autonomous local forests but the product of a complex agroforests in Michon 2005) or disintensification (as reported relationship between the state and local actors mediated by for chestnut groves in Michon 2011 and Aumeeruddy-Thomas public policies. And they often appear as sites of contestation et al. 2012, or truffle culture in Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. between local actors and forest bureaucracies.” 2012). Rural forests constantly adapt to local needs and global conditions and evolve according to the evolution of Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

The analysis of these interactions shows a general mismatch Fig. 8. The evolution of ashtree-based rural forests in the between the management objectives in rural forests, and the Pyrenees, from traditional stands around the farm (above) to objectives of public policies. The promotion of sustainable dense thickets colonizing abandoned pastures (below) development norms and policies allows for a better acknowledgement of rural forests. However, dynamics induced by this requalification of rural forests by both public powers and local communities move in two different directions. These directions modify the relationships between these two categories of actors: the naturalization of rural forests by policy makers, and their politization by rural people themselves. These movements occur in the framework of opposing patrimonial movements, some being driven by states and international NGOs, others through bottom-up movements claiming for alternative rural development (Michon et al. 2012). Political naturalization exists as a global tendency that expresses in different intensities all over the world. But everywhere, this global tendency takes the form of a progressive obliteration of the human traits in rural forests and the concentration on their environmental benefits. Rural forests are thus requalified through naturalist or environmental narratives that justify new development projects. Naturalization may reflect the reinforcement of sector-based logics like the community forests in Cameroon (Lescuyer 2005) or rural forests in India (Menon et al. 2009). It can come along with the “greening process” of agriculture, which tends to favor environmental services at large scales rather than production at local scales like in rehabilitation of chestnut forests in France (Michon 2011). It can accompany the environmental requalification of local knowledge into “traditional ecological knowledge”, as observed in the international promotion of argan oil (Simenel et al. 2009) or the recognition of the value of Indonesian agroforests by the Department of Forestry (Fay et al. 2000). When political entities do not totally overlook the role of local people in the creation and management of rural forests, they present farmers as ”managers of nature” and, consciously or not, tend to obliterate and even to prohibit some local practices considered Rural forests result from a continuous management process as too agricultural, like slash-and-burn practices in Cameroon occurring simultaneously at local, national and international (Poissonnet and Lescuyer 2005). Or they ignore certain levels, which has to be analyzed in light of local societies’ features that are obviously too domestic, like in the argan forest dynamics and interactions with the political arena (particularly (Simenel et al. 2009). These political entities barely take into in the areas where the influence of the state on forest account the improvement of farmers’ income and welfare— management is important). These interactions differ which are key factors of farms’ sustainability, particularly in historically and from one country to another but definitively forested areas with marginal economy. While being focused impact the resilience of both rural forests and the production only on environmental aspects, these entities restrict the systems in which they are included. They include elements of possibility of further development for forests, and contribute ideology (from foresters’ point of view, the historical equating to denaturing the objectives of these policies developed in the between rural forests and “backwardness” of rural name of sustainable development. populations; from a local perspective, the perception local This political naturalization of rural forests echoes, in some forest as a symbol of resistance to a centralized state), actor’s cases, a real naturalization process of the forest through behavior (domination, imposition, resistance, incorporation, ecological dynamics linked to the abandonment or change in training, collaboration), rules and measures (repressive or management practices: for example, shrub encroachment in inciting). Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

the chestnut forests since the second half of the 20th century favorable context for further acknowledgement and (Michon 2001); spontaneous in the garrigues of development of rural forests. the Languedoc (Aumeeruddy-Thomas et al. 2012) or in the A first move has already begun in scientific approaches. argan forest of the Moroccan Anti-Atlas (Simenel 2011); or Foresters and biologists who have often seen the forest as an ash tree invasion of abandoned pastures in the Pyrenees (Gibon autonomous and natural system (away from the historical et al. 2010). reality of societies who have used and transformed it) and have The politization of rural forests is carried out by local actors consistently considered humans as invaders and depredators, themselves or their representatives (NGOs, associations). It is started considering humans as part of the forest ecosystem. seldom presented as a political act. Rather, it develops as a Analyses move from impact studies to analyses of interaction process of social-ecological justification (as for Indonesian and coconstruction. The approaches of specialists in agroforests or tribal forests in India) or of economic valuation ethnosciences, as well as conceptual frameworks of social- of forest products or landscapes, to which strong images of ecological systems and of adaptive management, have helped heritage, local knowledge or specific culture are attached. considerably in analyzing the interactions between forests and Politization opposes naturalization: rural forests are praised local people in more positive terms, highlighting the project as socio-historical constructions. They are not a “forest” and investment dimension of local forest domestication. anymore, but the product of a long development history linking Further documenting and understanding rural forests of the a social group, a geographical space and natural resources that world and accepting the various complementarities they have been completely redefined through specific knowledge exhibit could help repair the unproductive historical divide and social rules. that has been established between forestry and agriculture. Referring to patrimony, which highlights intergenerational As far as policies are concerned, sustainable development transmission and solidarity, is constant (Michon et al. 2012). paradigm offer new perspectives for the development of these Patrimony refers either to lineage patrimony (private forest of forests that do exhibit basic qualities for sustainability. Though Gascony: Sourdril et al. 2012; damar agroforests: Michon et rural forests are not biodiversity hotspots, highly productive al. 2000), or to collective patrimonies, as in the example of forest systems, or a model for equitable sharing of rights and chestnut forests that are presented as the indivisible inheritance benefits, they do exhibit qualities in all these domains of Corsicans (Michon 2011). This patrimonial development (Asbjornsen et al. 2004). Rural forests represent an important aims at restoring or ensuring the persistence and the component of local economies that incorporate ecological and reproduction of elements (products, rules, know-how, etc.) social bases. Imperatives for social justice and equity, the considered as essential for the existence and the perpetuation integration of governance and environmental values into of these social groups. It thus recovers strong identity claims production activities, and the common allegation that (Corsica, Indonesia), often accompanied by land or political indigenous people are legitimate and experienced forest claims (India, Indonesia). In these patrimonial constructions, stewards, can bring new perspectives. In spite of the examples rural forests are put forward to legitimate actions that barely of local transformation and destruction, other examples of relate to sustainable development; however they address the reinforcement of rural forests’ legitimacy and profitability are sustainability of the rural forests through the definition or the multiplying. The ideology of sustainable development may stabilization of practices that prove to be ecologically sound, allow these original forests to confirm their importance in areas generate new income or allow for locally negotiated social that lie between biodiversity sanctuaries and intensive timber coordination. production areas.

CONCLUSION Given sustainable development challenges in a context of Rural forests constitute specific social-ecological systems that financial crises and global changes, rural forests also represent question long-established evidence (like the incompatibility an invaluable asset for marginal rural territories. It is important between agriculture and forestry, long run and short term, to allow them full expression of their potential. It is also nature and culture, wild and domesticated, or the presentation important that they develop with the support of public policies, of production and services) as alternatively economic, not against them. This, of course, requires an integrative, environmental or social. In this sense, they allow refreshing transdisciplinary and nonsector-based approach. analytic categories in the field of natural resources management. They also open original perspectives on Responses to this article can be read online at: relationships between agriculture and sustainable development http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/issues/responses. and between public policies and local dynamics. php/5706 The current age of globalization (of ideas and products) and injunctions for sustainable development may represent a Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

Fay, C., M. Sirait, and A. Kusworo. 2000. Getting the Acknowledgments: Boundaries Right. Indonesia’s Urgent Need to Redefine its Forest Estate. ICRAF Occasional Paper, Southeast Asia Part of this work was funded by the French Agency ANR within Policy Research Working Paper, No. 25. 18p. its ADD Program, under the POPULAR research program Fay, C. and G. Michon. 2005. Redressing forestry hegemony. When a forestry regulatory framework is best replaced by an LITERATURE CITED agrarian one. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 15(2): 193-209. Asbjornsen, H., A. Angelsen, B. Belcher, G. Michon, M. Ruiz- http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2005.9752520 Pérez, and V. P. R. Wijesekara. 2004. Proceedings of the International Workshop ‘Cultivating (in) Tropical Forests? Feintrenie, L., S. Schwarze, and P. Levang. 2010. Are local The evolution and sustainability of systems of management people conservationists? Analysis of transition dynamics from between extractivism and plantations’. 28 June-1 July 2000, agroforests to monoculture plantations in Indonesia. Ecology Lofoten, Norway. European Tropical Forest Research and Society 15(4): 37. [online] URL: http://www. Network Publication Series, 86 pp. ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art37/. Auclair, L., P. Baudot, D. Genin, B. Romagny, and R. Simenel. Garcia, C. A., S. Bhagwat, J. Ghazoul, C. D. Nath, K. M. 2011. Patrimony for resilience: evidence from the forest Agdal Nanaya, C. G. Kushalappa, Y. Raghuramulu, R. Nasi, and P. in the Moroccan High Atlas Mountains. Ecology and Society Vaast. 2010. Biodiversity conservation in agricultural 16(4): 24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04429-160424 landscapes: challenges and opportunities of coffee agroforests in the Western Ghats, India. Conservation Biology 24(2): Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., C. Therville, C. Lemarchand, A. 479-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01386.x Lauriac, and F. Richard. 2012. Resilience of sweet chestnut and truffle holm-oak rural forests in Languedoc-Roussillon, France: roles of social-ecological legacies, domestication, and Génin, D., and R. Simenel. 2011. Endogenous Berber forest innovations. Ecology and Society 17(2): 12. http://dx.doi. management and the functional shaping of rural forests in org/10.5751/ES-04750-170212 southern Morocco: implications for shared forest management options. Human Ecology 39(3): 257-69. http://dx.doi. Balée, W. 1998. Advances in historical ecology. New York: org/10.1007/s10745-011-9390-2 Columbia University Press. Genin, D., Y. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, G. Balent, and R. Nasi. Balent, G. 1996. La Forêt paysanne dans l'espace rural: 2013. The multiple dimensions of rural forests: lessons from biodiversité, paysages, produits. Etudes & Recherches sur les a comparative analysis. Ecology and Society 18(1): 27. http:// Systèmes Agraires et le Développement 29, 268 pp. dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05429-180127 Baudry, J. and A. Jouin. 2003. De la haie aux bocages. Gibon, A., D. Sheeren, C. Monteil, S. Ladet, and G. Balent. Organisation, dynamique et gestion. INRA Edition, Paris, 2010. Modelling and simulating mountain landscape France. using a socio-ecological framework. Landscape Boffa, J. M. 1999. Agroforestry Parklands in Sub-Saharan Ecology 25: 267-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10980-009-9438-5 Africa. FAO Conservation Guide 34, 230 pp. Boutefeu, B. and P. Arnould. 2006. Le métier de forestier: Kouplevatskaya, I. and G. Buttoud. 2008. Les trois visions de entre rationalité et sensibilité. Revue Forestière Française 58: la forêt dans le débat sur le développement durable : planète, 61-72. ressource et territoire. Revue Forestière Française 60: 307-22.

Dupré, L. 2002. Du marron à la châtaigne. La relance d'un produit régional. Éditions du Comité des Travaux Historiques Lepais, O., J. Lavabre, M. Gonzalez, J. Willm, A. Cabanettes, et Scientifiques. Paris, France. and S. Gerber. 2006. Genetic diversity and genetic structure of oaks in two landscapes: impact of ecology, history and Erickson, C. L. 2006. The domesticated landscapes of the management (in French). Les Actes du BRG 6: 543-57. Bolivian Amazon. Pages 235-78 in W. Balée, and C. L. Erickson, editors. Time and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Lescuyer, G. 2005. Formes d’action collective pour la gestion Studies in the Neotropical Lowlands. Columbia University locale de la forêt camerounaise: organisations «modernes» ou Press, New York, U.S.A. institutions «traditionnelles»? VertigO 6(3). http://vertigo. revues. org/8029. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/vertigo.8029 Fairhead, J. and M. Leach. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in the Forest-Savanna Lescuyer, G., S. Assembe Mvondo, J. N. Essoungou, V. Mosaic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U. K. http:// Toison, J. F. Trébuchon, and N. Fauvet. 2012. dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139164023 concessions and local livelihoods in Cameroon: from Ecology and Society 18(1): 30 http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss1/art30/

indifference to alliance? Ecology and Society 17(1): 7. http:// Monteil, C., M. Deconchat, and G. Balent. 2005. Simple neural dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04507-170107 network reveals unexpected patterns of bird species richness in forest fragments. Landscape Ecology 20: 513-27. http://dx. Linares, A. M. 2007. Forest planning and traditional doi.org/10.1007/s10980-004-3317-x knowledge in collective woodlands of Spain: The dehesa system. and Management 249(1-2): 71-9. Nouaïm, R. 2005. L’arganier au Maroc, entre mythes et http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.059 réalités. L’Harmattan, Paris, France. Macura, B., F. Zorondo-Rodríguez, M. Grau-Satorras, K. Poissonnet, M., and G. Lescuyer. 2005. Aménagement Demps, M. Laval, C. A. Garcia, and V. Reyes-García. 2011. forestier et participation: quelles leçons tirer des forêts Local community attitudes toward forests outside protected communales du Cameroun?, VertigO 6(2). http://vertigo. areas in India. Impact of legal awareness, trust, and revues. org/4290. participation. Ecology and Society 16(3): 10. http://dx.doi. Rives, F., M. Antona, and S. Aubert. 2012. Social-ecological org/10.5751/ES-04242-160310 functions and vulnerability framework to analyze forest policy Menon, A., C. Hinnewinkel, C. Garcia, S. Guillerme, N. Rai, reforms. Ecology and Society 17(4): 21. http://dx.doi. and S. Krishnan. 2009. Competing Visions: Domestic Forests, org/10.5751/ES-05182-170421 Politics and Forest Policy in the Central Western Ghats of San Miguel, A. 1994. La dehesa española. Origen, tipología, South India. Small-Scale Forestry 8: 515-27. http://dx.doi. características y gestión, Fundación Conde del Valle de org/10.1007/s11842-009-9096-0 Salazar, Madrid, Spain. 96 pp. Michon, G. 2005. Cultivating forests on farmlands. IRD/ Sauget, N. 1994. Of land, and men: farmers talk about CIFOR/ICRAF, Bogor, Indonesia. the land, the evolution of woodland and the landscape. Michon, G. 2011. Revisiting the resilience of chestnut forests Landscape Issues 11: 52-58. in Corsica: from social-ecological systems theory to political Simenel, R. 2011. Comment domestiquer une forêt sans les ecology. Ecology and Society 16(2): 5. [online] URL: http:// homes. Une ethnoécologie historique des forêts d’arganier du www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art5/. sud-ouest marocain. Techniques et Cultures 56: 224-47. Michon, G. and H. de Foresta. 1999. Agro-Forests: Simenel, R., G. Michon, L. Auclair, B. Romagny, Y. Thomas, Incorporating a Forest Vision in Agroforestry. In L. E. Buck, and M. Guyon. 2009. L’argan: l’huile qui cache la forêt J. Lassoie, and E. C. M. Fernandes, editors. Agroforestry in domestique De la valorisation du produit à la naturalisation Sustainable Agricultural Systems. CRC Press LLC, de l’écosystème. Autrepart 50: 51-74. http://dx.doi. Washington D. C., U.S.A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420049473. org/10.3917/autr.050.0051 ch17 Sourdril, A., E. Andrieu, A. Cabanettes, B. Elyakime, and S. Michon, G., H. de Foresta, A. Kusworo, and P. Levang. 2000. Ladet. 2012. How to maintain domesticity of usages in small The Damar Agro-Forests of Krui, Indonesia: Justice for Forest rural forests? Lessons from forest management continuity Farmers. Pages 159-203 in C. Zerner, editor. People, Plants through a French case study. Ecology and Society 17(2): 6. and Justice. The Politics of Nature Conservation. Columbia http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04746-170206 University Press, New York, U.S.A. Sunderlin, W., O. Ndoye, H. Bikié, N. Laporte, B. Mertens, Michon, G., H. de Foresta, P. Levang and F. Verdeaux. 2007. and J. Pokam. 2000. Economic crisis, small-scale agriculture, Domestic forests: a new paradigm for integrating local and forest cover change in southern Cameroon. Environmental communities’ forestry into tropical forest science. Ecology Conservation 27: 284-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ and Society 12(2): 1. [online] URL: http://www. S0376892900000321 ecologyandsociety. org/vol12/iss2/art1/ Wiersum, K. F. 1997. Indigenous exploitation and Michon, G., R. Nasi, and G. Balent. 2008. More than just small management of tropical forest resources: an evolutionary scale forest management. Pages 149-58 in G. Buttoud, editor. continuum in forest-people interactions. Agriculture, Small-scale rural forest use and management: global policies Ecosystems & Environment 63 (1): 1-16 http://dx.doi. versus local knowledge. AgroParisTech-ENGREF, France. org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01124-3 Michon, G., B. Romagny, L. Auclair, and M. Deconchat. 2012. Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests— Forests as patrimonies? From theory to tangible processes at What Scope for Synergies? World Development 29: 1817-33. various scales. Ecology and Society 17(3): 7. http://dx.doi. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5 org/10.5751/ES-04896-170307